Welcome to the home of The Question Evolution Project. Presenting information demonstrating that there is no truth in minerals-to-man evolution, and presenting evidence for special creation. —Established by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Monday, March 31, 2014

A sign of intellectual dishonesty (and possibly laziness) is when people are unwilling to go to the source for information. They "learn" through gossip, disingenuous news sources, Web sites known for dishonesty and bias, make up their own "facts" from a little information and a lot of prejudice, and more.Too many people get their information about creationists from anti-creationist sites and the uninformed opinions of others. (Someone commented to me, "I have never actually spoken to a creationist. I don't know what you believe or why you believe it. Finally, I want to know. So I'm asking you." Although I am not the spokesman for all creationists, that is a step in the right direction. I gave him links to some biblical creation science organizations so he could get some first-hand information.) Similarly, people will go to sites along the lines of "I-Hate-God-Even-Though-I-Pretent-He-Does-Not-Exist-Except-When-I-Want-To-Hate-Him-And-Here-Are-My-Excuses-To-Justify-Hating-God-And-The-Bible-And-Christians dot com" and get horrible information.In my opinion, some people avoid going to the source because they do not want to know what someone really believes and teaches. My opinion is supported when an anti-creationist is challenged to actually read the material, and they go haywire with a reply with something like, "I know what they're going to say, and it's all lies and propaganda". I wonder what an "I know what you're going to say" fallacy is called. A form of appeal to motive? Mayhaps.So anyway, this is a source for straw man logical fallacies; people will set up a misrepresentation of someone's position and then knock it down. Some of this is done with the aforementioned intellectual dishonesty or laziness, but it is often done through prejudicial conjecture. It seems that if someone is going to report on a topic, he or she should do a bit of serious investigation. Well, a reporter from an evolutionary "science" magazine wrote about the Noah movie starring Russell Crowe, and he managed to ridicule God, the Bible, Genesis and more. But it was a straw man attack, not actual reporting.

The reporter kicked over a straw Ark, too, with a Flood of air.

“The Ark: Could Noah’s Tale Be True?” Benjamin Radford, a Live Science contributor, asked. The expected answer is that a “tale” cannot be true. It’s already been rendered false from the way the question was asked. But to fill in the rest of his column, Radford knocked down, with a Flood of air, a straw Noah standing beside a straw Ark.

It’s generally advisable in debate to take on your opponent’s best arguments. Radford clearly did not do his homework, because instead of facing the literature from scientific and theological creationist scholars about the evidence for a worldwide flood, the feasibility of an Ark, and the reliability of the story of Noah, he appears to have simply regurgitated the uninformed attacks of fellow skeptics. His only pro-creation source was a 1984 paperback by Dr. Henry M. Morris, Jr., The Biblical Basis of Modern Science, from which Radford quoted mostly assertions, not the evidence supporting them; this book was an overview of creation evidences, not a detailed examination of Noah’s Ark or Flood geology (see Morris’s earlier work, The Genesis Flood). Though he quoted Morris’s calculations of the capacity of the Ark, Radford did not consult any of the creation journals or book-length works that examine the Flood evidence at length, nor did he quote any living Flood geologists. His main skeptical source is Ken Feder’sEncyclopedia of Dubious Archaeology (2010), which lumps the Biblical record in with the bizarre like von Daniken’s meteoric fad, Chariots of the Gods. (See association and card stacking in the Baloney Detector.)

Saturday, March 29, 2014

If someone is going to make a movie about a Bible topic, it would make sense to actually use the original account. Sure, some embellishments to fill out the characters is reasonable and expected to make a story interesting and entertaining, and it has been done without doing violence to the source material 1, 2. Several biblical movies have been reasonably close to the original narratives, such as The Bible, King of Kings, Passion of the Christ, The Ten Commandments, Jesus of Nazareth and so on. (What if someone did The Diary of Anne Frank: Times Square Hooker Years?) Darren Aronofsky's Noah is proudly anti-biblical. It's better if movie makers actually have some respect for the subject!

The Noah movie has been panned by Christians and non-Christians alike from reading scripts and actual viewing 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 1112, though naturally some people liked it13, 14but their reasoning escapes me. Perhaps it is the joy of hating something related to the Bible, but I'm guessing on that one. In addition to the movie events being far from the original account, it's considered to be just plain bad.

Can anything good come out of this? Perhaps. God can use odd things that a Spirit-led evangelist can use as a springboard for a gospel-related conversation. It's happened to me. Can Noah be used to spark interest in the real narrative and Flood geology? After all, the ark in the movie was at least a big boat (similar to the biblical record) and not the goofy crowded bathtub image with giraffes sticking their heads up. Who can take that seriously? Seriously! Tas Walker thinks so, especially if people will give up their uniformitarian assumptions. Noah's Flood geology gives better answers for what we observe than uniformitarian evolutionary geology.

The public interest in this film could spark new interest in the
biblical account of Noah’s Flood. The global Flood is hugely significant
for biblical geology. Mainstream uniformitarian geologists since the
early 1800s have worked on the assumption that Noah’s Flood never
happened. If it comes into their minds at all, they would dismiss it as
mythological or imaginary. Let’s hope this film will raise questions in
their minds.

Is the film faithful to the biblical account? It seems liberties were
taken in the way the characters and events were portrayed, and in the
motivations behind what happened. That is understandable. Aronofsky
wants to attract an audience and make a profit from the film.

Some critics have described the film as biblical fantasy — a fantasy
story developed around a biblical theme but only loosely constrained by
the biblical account. Even still, there is enough in the film to
generate new ideas for those who like to think outside the box.

Friday, March 28, 2014

Proponents of evolution will tell us that fossils are proof that they are right. Unfortunately, this is based on assertions, preconceptions, circular reasoning and more fallacies. Again I tell you that there is no such thing as your facts and my facts because we all have the same facts. It is the interpretation of the facts that cause the disagreements.

Credit: US Army - Use does not imply approval or endorsement of this site

A frequent problem for evolutionary geologists and paleontologists is that things are in the "wrong place" according to their uniformitarian and evolutionary worldview. Oldthings are found with less old things, and so on. So the evolutionists have to make excuses. Again. It is too bad that they cling to their disproved assumptions, since the evidence clearly fits the Noachian Flood models of biblical creationists.

The stories told about some fossils raise more questions than answers, even with top Darwin spin doctors in the operating room.

Thursday, March 27, 2014

One of the more amazing and self-refuting things that Darwin's Cheerleaders will do is engage in prejudicial conjecture. That is, they have biased, uninformed opinions that they are willing to share as if they are imparting wisdom upon the unenlightened. Some even have the gall to tell us falsehoods about what we believe and teach, but never mind about that now.We see an excellent example of that in the article that follows. Dr. Terry Mortonson was giving lectures in the UK. He received an e-mail about how he was "misrepresenting basic science" and that he was wrong on so many things. Even more amazingly, the writer was complaining that Dr. Mortonson was not qualified to talk about his topic, and the writer was unqualified in the area — but Mortonson was still wrong! He provided links from a highly biased and inaccurate evolution propaganda site (faulty appeal to authority) to prove him wrong. All this from someone who did not bother to attend any of the talks! Still, Terry took the time to use logic and science to give the guy something to think about.

I appreciate that you admit that you are really not qualified academically to comment on the subject of my lecture. But one does not have to be an expert to critically evaluate the arguments, if one reads both pro and con arguments by competent representatives of the positions being discussed. Furthermore, since both creation and evolution accounts of origins touch on many disciplines of science and since scientific information has become so massive and scientists have necessarily become so specialized, there is a sense in which no one is qualified to evaluate any arguments. Everyone (evolutionist or creationist) has to trust experts outside their own narrow field of expertise.

But let me respond to at least some of your objections since you made an effort to write them up.

Wednesday, March 26, 2014

The fact that many secular scientists as well as biblical creationists reject the Big Bang should give people reason to pause and reflect. Instead, people keep believing the pronouncements of secular scientists and Bible compromisers affirming the failed Big Bang conjecture. Indeed, under-investigated findings are touted as the "smoking gun" for the Big Bang, but indicate desperation to cling to a universe without a Creator.

I think that is why the Big Bang won't die gracefully: People won't let it because they don't want to admit that God is the Creator and makes the rules.

Bob Enyart and Fred Williams on Real Science Radio discuss evidence refuting the Big Bang, including how Laurence Krauss made untrue statements. You can listen to the audio online or through downloading, but pay attention to the page because there is a wealth of information and links. This should be the equivalent of driving a stake through the Big Bang's heart, shooting it with a silver bullet, pouring salt in its mouth and sewing its lips together — but that ol' evolutionary black magicks of wishful thinking and bad logic just keep bringing the Big Bang back to life. Click here for "RSR's List of Evidence Against the Big Bang".

Looking for a comment area? You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Tuesday, March 25, 2014

To say that evolutionists misrepresent creationists is not only an understatement, is is also not really news. Another "not really news" item is to report that evolutionists tend to make assertions that are unsupported by (or contrary to) the evidence. Those old news items are documented here and elsewhere.What is more interesting is the way that evolutionists will take evidence that refutes their paradigm and present it as support for their belief system. What is worse is that gullible people will simply take their word for it because they're "scientists", and then try to use it in their attacks on creationists. Here we see scientists giving credit to "evolution" (fallacy of reification) and making the bad news sound good. The truth is on the side of creationists, so we do not need to resort to creative deceptions and wild stories to convince people.

The “modern optics” of arthropods found fossilized in ‘Early Cambrian’ South Australian shale rock are right in line with the Bible’s account of there being a Designer (Genesis 1, Romans 1:20). And the fact that these fossilized eyes are “exceptionally preserved” fits with the rapid burial you’d expect as a legacy of the catastrophic Flood of Noah’s day (Genesis 6–9). But the ‘spin’ that evolutionists have put on these fossils as they try to salvage them as evidence for evolutionary theory is both brazenly deceptive and admirably creative.

Here’s how the Nature journal editor began his summary of one research paper on the “modern optics” and “complex vision” of a claimed 500-million-year-old arthropod:

Monday, March 24, 2014

Atheism is an easy religion. Just say you don't believe. Standing up for
the truth of the Bible is hard, and you will be persecuted. A 1987 song by Steve Taylor comes to mind, "Harder to Believe than Not To" (inspired by Flannery O'Connor). I like where it says, "Are you sturdy enough to move to the front? Is it nods of approval or the truth that you want? And if they call it a crutch, then you walk with pride, Your accusers have always been afraid to go outside". Right! We take our stand for the truth, and atheopaths throw rocks from the safety of "I don't believe", yet consider themselves crusaders for "reason", even when they do not know how to use logic, nor do they have a source for a consistent moral standard.What about agnostics? I am convinced that many are atheists who want even less of a commitment, but they still throw rocks right along side the hatetheists. I still have hopes for those who are honestly seeking, however.It is easy for unbelievers to say things that are completely untrue and not be ashamed among their peers since they don't police their own much. While Christians are supposed to call each other to account, I see atheists giving approval of persecution and deceit. Then they claim that they have moral standards. "Good without God"? Not hardly.Here is a comment I found just this morning, something blatantly false:

Was he lying, ignorant or something else? I dunno.

Did you know that I am a "compulsive liar for Jesus"? It was news to me. (Not as good as Ken Ham, who was called a "professional liar".) Such accusations are irrational. This is what people who stand for the truth have to deal with. God told us it would happen. People who make such accusations do not impress thinking people, though I am convinced that they are using emotional buzzwords to negate their opposition because they cannot refute them with science and logic.

One stalker keeps sending e-mail to other creationists (who, let's be straightforward, are much more important than I am and have probably never even heard of me). It is unreasoning hate and a clear case of courtroom-admissible libel. He admittedly wants to destroy my reputation. Frankly, I think this it is all about his ego). I helped by forwarding the mail (it was sent to me from someone else, I have this guy blocked) to several people, including Pastor Bob Enyart, who interviewed me on his radio show twice. What these people do not get is that I pray for glory to God, not glory to Bob. I know I will fade, but want to have an impact for Christ when and where I can.

By the way, just think for a moment: People who believe in God, who is holy, righteous and just, who hates sin and liars, are going to lie to get someone to believe in the gospel message? Oh, please! The other thing is that simply calling someone a "liar for Jesus", or simply throwing around the accusation without backing up the claim, makes the accuser into the liar.

Simply asserting something is false does not make it false. Calling someone a liar does not make him or her a liar. There's this little thing called evidence that people like to use.One thing I emphasize in the video that even if I was lying, so what? That would be a natural result of evolution, and nobody has any right to complain! Although it's annoying to be called a liar by liars, and it's outright laughable for someone with no foundation for morality to call me "evil", they do this because they are controlled by their father down below.Such persecution leads to greater rewards in Heaven. Should I thank my persecutors for increasing my wealth?

"It's harder to believe than not to." Sorry for the more lengthy introduction than usual. Here is the video. Below it is something I took a few seconds of audio from:

Looking for a comment area? You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Friday, March 21, 2014

And now for something completely different. This will be much lighter fare, informative and possibly a bit entertaining.Two of the fallacies that creationists often encounter when giving evidence that refutes evolution is Appeal to Authority. Sometimes it's spurious (such as believing that atheist evolutionist Richard Dawkins is an expert on biblical creationist theology), sometimes it is valid (such as believing that Dr. Jason Lisle knows about astrophysics). And sometimes it is used instead of bothering to think, such as, "Most scientists believe in evolution, so they must be right". Or worse, appealing to some vague and often inaccurate concept of "consensus", because consensus does not validate truth or science.

When scientists actually practice real science instead of furthering ideologies, various "facts" and things accepted by consensus have come and gone. Sometimes things are believed for a long time by many people and then they go away.

US CDC

Here is a fun list of things that were believed at one time but have been successfully relegated to the trash of scientific history. Unfortunately, evolution is one of those things like a broken toy that Mom puts out for the dustman, and junior brings the fetid thing back inside for more loving. It should be on the rubbish removal list. Anyway, I hope you like reading "10 Debunked Scientific Beliefs of the Past".

Looking for a comment area? You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Thursday, March 20, 2014

Several conjectures for the condition of the universe have been proposed through the years. The Big Bang was not widely accepted as the origin of the universe until the 1960s, even though the concept had been put forward years before. Some of the resistance was due to how it indicated that the universe had a beginning, and other concepts (such as the Steady State and the Static) had a kind of "it was always there" approach. Many secular scientists as well as biblical creationists reject the Big Bang due to various scientific difficulties. Both biblical and secular scientists have postulated erroneous explanations.

Nine-Year Microwave Sky / NASA / WMAP Science Team

Predictions were made that there would be background radiation. The idea was that if this was found, it would not only prove the Big Bang, but disprove the Steady State of the universe. This background exists in microwave form, and the Steady State was largely abandoned. Proponents of the Big Bang believe that it, as well as the CMB, disprove the biblical account of creation. However, the Big Bang has serious problems of its own.Rather than being proof of the Big Bang and refutation of the Bible, the problems show that further research of cosmic proportions needs to be conducted. Dr. Danny Faulkner wrote for Answers Research Journal.

I examine two explanations for the cosmic microwave background (CMB)
that recent creationists have proposed, 1) radiation from dust, and 2)
Eddington’s “temperature of space” computation. Both of these suggested
sources have problems. Radiation from dust is too clumpy and has too
high temperature to be the source of the CMB. Eddington’s model of the
“temperature of space” differs from the characteristics of the CMB in at
least three ways. I also examine some claims from critics of the big
bang that the CMB plots have been manipulated to mimic a blackbody
spectrum and find that argument to be baseless. I briefly survey four
problems with the CMB being the remnant of the big bang. These
considerations present the possibility that no one yet knows the true
origin of the CMB.

Wednesday, March 19, 2014

When defending the truth of biblical creation science, sometimes we need to correct enthusiastic but inaccurate creationists about using bad arguments. It is indeed unfortunate that evolutionists do not feel the same way about correcting their uninformed supporters.The article linked below describes several arguments that are common on the Web. Some of us are more public than others, so we encounter them frequently. It infuriates some of Darwin's Cheerleaders that we often know more about evolution than they do, and have to correct them about their own belief system! Why they feel the need to patrol the Web and attack evolution unbelievers, I can only guess. Some even claim that they are protecting "science". Ridiculous. Science does not need protecting! In fact, true science flourishes when scientists will examine contrary evidence instead of suppressing it like people are doing today.One "argument" that is not on the list is when we get people who reflexively calls practically anyone who gives evidence for a young earth, refuting evolution, telling the truth about atheism &c. a "liar". However, I think they do not really know what that word means. Or perhaps they do not care. The fact is that someone with a contrary viewpoint that offers evidence and logical arguments against evolution is not a liar — such an accusation not only makes the accuser look ridiculous, but makes said accuser into a liar.The following article may be of interest to Darwin's Drones, but creationists should read it (and the supporting links) to be aware of the vacuous but passionate attacks to which we are subjected. We can beware of these things, but unfortunately we cannot actually stop bullying and anti-Christian bigotry.

We have a popular article titled, Arguments we think creationists should not use. Indeed, even many misotheistic evolutionists, including Richard Dawkins, have commended the existence of such a page. Well, as the saying goes, ‘What is good for the goose is also good for the gander.’ Here are arguments that we think evolutionists should not use.

Tuesday, March 18, 2014

I was going to ignore this story until one of Darwin's Cheerleaders posted it at me as if it refuted this entire article exposing the Tyson version of Cosmos.Here is a bit of humor to start us off. It was originally an ethnic joke (the nationalities are changed in various places on the Web) that I re-purposed.

After having dug to a depth of 10 meters last year, scientists from Dawkinsania found traces of copper wire dating back 100 years and came to the conclusion that their ancestors already had a telephone network more than 100 years ago.Not to be outdone by the Dawkinsanians, in the weeks that followed, Tysonian scientists dug to a depth of 20 meters, and shortly after, headlines in the Tysonian newspapers read: "Our archaeologists have found traces of 200 year old copper wire and have concluded that our ancestors already had an advanced high-tech communications network a hundred years earlier than Dawkinsania."One week later, "The New Phys Science Nature dot Org," a newspaper in Lost Angles, Nyeistan, reported the following: "After digging as deep as 30 meters in peat bog near the capitol city, Nyeistanian scientists reported that they found absolutely nothing. They have therefore concluded that 300 years ago, Nyeistan had already gone wireless."

This joke inadvertently illustrates how some scientists and their press will make big announcements without doing thorough analysis of their subject. Big announcement: The Holy Grail of cosmic irreligiosity, the "smoking gun" to prove the Big Bang and the inflationary universe, has been announced. Yippie ky yay and stuff. The Big Bang "theory" itself has evolved over the years; it had to be constantly modified because it is not supported by the data.This is premature, and Andrei Linde seems to know it. He is equivocating, seeming to be close to tears of joy and having a drink to celebrate. Then he says that it would be great if the "discovery" is true. It is a nice way to say something without being committed to it, and actually saying nothing.

Yet again, we are given wild speculations before they are thoroughly investigated. People will say that the press is at fault, and that is partially true. But the scientists want the sensationalism, accolades, publicity and money just like other people, so they let the publicists run wild. No, not all of the press are quick to run wild with a partial story. Too many do so, however.Worse, Evolution Autons will grab the stories and post them as if they had just killed God and discredited all of creation science — all because of incomplete analyses and ignoring other explanations of the questionable findings. You would think that they would learn, since haste to prove evolution or disprove God tends to backfire and cause great embarrassment.

Claims of a major breakthrough about the big bang are swirling in the news: is it inflation, or inflating the evidence?

In “Stop the presses!” style, the science news are simultaneously announcing that gravitational waves have been discovered that reveal evidence for inflation. Cosmic inflation stems from Alan Guth’s proposal in the 1980s that the universe underwent an unbelievable expansion (much faster than light) for just a few billionths of a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second immediately after the big bang (see “State of the Cosmos,” 2/21/05). Despite undergoing numerous overhauls and versions, inflation theory has become somewhat of a “given” among cosmologists, because it neatly dispenses with two falsifications of the big bang, the horizon problem and the lumpiness problem. Still, some complained that it was (1) untestable and (2) it created as many problems as it solved. Science Now openly admits the idea sounds crazy:

Monday, March 17, 2014

Darwin's Cheerleaders falsely claim that a proper understanding of evolution is essential to the progress of science. (Another of their false claims is that scientists who reject evolution are not true scientists, which is essentially an arbitrary, ideological litmus test to define "scientist".) Evolution has nothing to do with the advancement of science and technology. A scientist's rejection of evolutionism will not affect his or her ability to perform medical science or calculate rocket trajectories, and this has been shown many times.

Origins science has effects, and is not just a parlor discussion. The truth is that the presumption of evolution has actually been harmful to the advancement of science. Biblical-based presuppositions lead to better science.

“It doesn’t really matter, in the real world, what you believe about creation or evolution,” the college student glibly challenged me. “Whether the evolutionists are right or whether Genesis is right makes no practical difference in how science works or in how people live their lives.” With a grin and a wave of his hand, the sophomore dismissed the real-world relevance of biblical creation as if it were no morepractical than evolutionary myths.

Was he correct? Is the Genesis record of God’s creation (and its post-Fall groaning condition, the global Flood, etc.) really that irrelevant to how science works and how people live?

No. There are many practical proofs that refute his reckless conclusion.

Friday, March 14, 2014

The public has an idealized concept of scientists as being dispassionate, willing to follow where the evidence leads, unbiased — you know, not really human. They may not even want to be on the pedestal that some people put them upon. In fact, they have the same ambitions, moral failings and even biases just like us reg'lar folk.Quite likely, even more so. The worldviews of evolutionary scientists compels them to promote their own dogma. It is fine to deceive students because the end (belief in evolution) justifies the means. Darwin's Cheerleaders are willing to troll, libel, defame, and use bad logic. Not surprising, really, since many scientists and especially their press are setting examples with poor reasoning. There should be no reason to criticize them for fraud and other shenanigans such as tampering with the data or telling "stories". Survival of the fittest is a part of evolutionary theory, remember? They are being consistent with their worldview.Christians do not need to be intimidated by what passes as "science", and when they claim to have disproved something in the Bible — just wait a while and watch their disproof get disproved. Again. Meanwhile, we have a consistent foundation for the truth.

Many people think that science is about impartial observation and the reporting of facts. But scientists, like all human beings, have biases, agendas and belief systems that cause them to interpret facts in a certain way. It’s normal for people to want to also convince others of what they believe, and unfortunately they sometimes stretch the point in trying to get others on board. Also, in the research world it’s all about tenure and funding. If one makes a spectacular claim or find, money and recognition often follow—as long as these claims fit within the ruling scientific paradigm.

Today, science is equated with naturalism. Naturalism is the belief that everything in existence came about through natural processes. Many currently observed natural processes are extrapolated back into the past over vast eons of time. For example, in geology, one often hears the mantra, “The present is the key to the past.” Only materialistic explanations are allowed to explain the world we live in, no matter if the facts point to a contrary hypothesis.

Thursday, March 13, 2014

This is a great time to be a creationist! The more science and technology advance, the more we learn about God's creation — and the more absurd the hypothesis of evolution really is. Evolution has been repeatedly falsified on earth and in space, and creation science is being verified.

NASA, ESA, and S. Beckwith (STScI) and the HUDF Team

In space, no one can hear cosmologists scream about the failings of their presuppositions. Galaxies are "too perfect", refuting the Big Bang. Blue stars, stars that should not even exist — and galaxies that are "too mature". The Big Bang cosmology is in a death spiral, with circular reasoning, "maybe", "must have", "probably", plus other unfounded assertions, speculations and logical fallacies passed off as "science".

Fifteen years ago, no cosmologist would have predicted mature galaxies early on, but they keep getting found – earlier and earlier.

Astronomers just set a new record. They found mature galaxies dated at just 1.6 billion years after the big bang, a mere 12% of its assumed age. Science Daily explains in “Galaxies in the early universe mature beyond their years”–:

An international team of researchers has discovered the most distant examples of galaxies in the early universe that were already mature and massive. The mature galaxies were found at a record-breaking distance of 12 billion light years, seen when the universe was just 1.6 billion years old. Their existence at such an early time raises new questions about what forced them to grow up so quickly.

This is what is called a falsification: a failed prediction of what was previously believed. To adjust the consensus cosmology, astronomers are forced to postulate new mechanisms for forcing galaxies to grow up quickly. This has the drawback of undermining the uniformity of nature, requiring “special pleading” to get a theory to work.

Wednesday, March 12, 2014

It is expected that people will interpret what they see according to their worldviews. Scientists are like other people, everyone has a starting point. Forcing observed data into presuppositions instead of taking using their own guideline of "follow where the evidence leads" causes problems. Especially when their preconceptions are repeatedly shown to be flawed.

Wooly mammoth cave art from Les Combarelles, France / PD

In their attempts to explain the extinction of the wooly mammoths, scientists are assuming several things: There were several ice ages (we are between them right now), evolution is true, the earth is billions of years old and so on. When thoroughly examined, latest "explanation" for extinction raises more questions than it answers. However, models of the global Genesis Flood are far more plausible.

Researchers claim to potentially have solved the mystery of the wooly mammoth’s mass extinction.
After drilling permafrost cores in Alaska, Canada, and northern Russia,
a team led by Eske Willerslev of the University of Copenhagen analyzed
DNA remnants of Arctic vegetation within those cores. Based upon their
analysis of the cores, they concluded that edible plants called forbs
(which include sagebrush, yarrow, and mums) were once much more abundant
upon the Arctic steppes. Furthermore, the stomach contents within
mammoth and other animal carcasses seem to indicate that the mammoths
preferred these forbs. The scientists theorize that an “invasion” by
grasses crowded out the forbs, greatly reducing the amount of the
mammoths’ preferred foods. But is this really an adequate explanation?
Researchers have long assumed that mammoths did eat grasses, as do
modern-day elephants. Yet, even if the mammoths preferred forbs, they
could still have presumably subsisted on a grass-rich diet.

This is only the latest of many theories offered to explain the wooly
mammoth’s extinction. As recently as 2013, scientists attributed the
animal’s disappearance to a warming climate.

Tuesday, March 11, 2014

When telling the tail — I mean, tale — of the progression from primitive to modern humanity, evolutionists hate to give up. The creatures they put forth as our alleged ancestors are built up from fragments, preconceptions, assumptions and a great deal of wishful thinking.

"Go to a museum and learn about evolution". Yeah, sure. A few bone fragments and artists' conceptions mixed in with the speculations of Evolution's High Priests™ and we get a mental image that scientists are brilliant, they really know how evolution happened. But they do not tell the entire story of how they have scant evidence, and that several of the "links" in the parade have been disproven, discredited, reassigned as fully human or fully ape (no, wait a moment, let's un-reassign this one again). Still they continue spinning yarns, ignoring facts. "The cognitive dissonance is strong in this one." It would make far more sense to admit that the evidence refutes evolution and points to the Creator.

Props for human evolution are disappearing, but evolutionists still use them in their storytelling.

It wasn’t that long ago (at least within the lifetime of many seniors) that Time-Life put out popular books with the iconic ape-to-man lineup. In the hoary old sequence, hairy Neanderthal Man walked behind naked modern man, grunting obeisance to the superior, talking Cro-Magnon (who had a strikingly European look). Far behind were the apes, trying to walk upright. A few transitional forms, drawn with artistic license, filled in the middle. The figures (all male for some reason), walked single file on an undisputed timeline. A few more missing links, and the parade would be complete. So much has changed!

Two recent popular science articles illustrate the tension between observation and story: props have vanished from under the storyteller’s feet, but he keeps talking.

Monday, March 10, 2014

More dinosaur fossils are coming out of communist China. This time, it looks like they are not fakes (like Archaeoraptor, for instance), but there are still absurd interpretations of the facts. In some ways, paleontologists have a treasure trove. But in other ways, they have problems for evolutionary ideas.

Two areas, allegedly millions of years apart in evolutionary time. And not much difference between the fossils. The cladistics people decided that, based on their presuppositions and worldview that evolution is true and that the fossils are millions of years old, well, that means evidence of common ancestry. Of course, they arbitrarily rule out the audacious concept that instead of common ancestry, what they see is evidence of common design by the Master Designer. And feathers? Must not be birds, it must be dinosaurs evolving into birds. Plenty of assumptions, circular reasoning and forcing observations into an ineffective framework going on here.

China’s famous Cretaceous wonderland in Liaoning Province—the Jehol
Biota—is apparently sitting atop a gold mine of similarly well-preserved
Middle-Upper Jurassic fossils. A team of paleontologists has just
compiled a catalogue of the vertebrate fossils from six sites in this
stratum and published the list in the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology.
They suggest the entire group, similar in age and ecology, be
henceforth known as the Daohugou Biota. Daohugou is an Inner Mongolian
village near the first of these fossil beds to be found. All six of the
fossil-rich sites are in northeastern China’s Tiaojishan Formation.

“The Daohugou Biota gives us a look at a rarely glimpsed side of the
Middle to Late Jurassic—not a parade of galumphing giants, but an
assemblage of quirky little creatures like feathered dinosaurs,
pterosaurs with ‘advanced’ heads on ‘primitive’ bodies, and the Mesozoic
equivalent of a flying squirrel,” says lead author Corwin Sullivan.
Coauthor Yuan Wang adds, “The Daohugou amphibians are crucially
important in the study of the phylogeny and early radiation of modern
amphibian groups.”

A small example of the misrepresentation, libel and defamation fest on the BCSE forums.

Misrepresentation, prejudicial conjecture and arguing from incomplete or suppressed information.

So, we're supposed to believe that these organizations and their supporters believe in science, but they strive to suppress evidence against evolution. Guess what? We all that the same facts! Some people interpret them differently. Louis Pasteur had resistance and opposition to his ideas, but I do not see people seeking to suppress them or calling him a liar because he went against current opinions.In the UK, these anti-creation evolution fundamentalists are getting even more outlandish in their efforts to suppress academic, speech, thought, religious and other freedoms.

CMI have frequently published articles regarding the unbalanced way
in which creationism is dealt with at Government level, and in some
instances banned in the UK education system. Only a few weeks ago, we ran with an article, appealing to End bad science and discrimination in education policies.
The attacks are relentless and display a level of aggressive
intolerance that is hard to stomach, coming as they do from the
self-proclaimed ‘voices of reason’.

Four recent news stories from the UK demonstrate the manner in which the offensive continues:

Friday, March 7, 2014

Elongated skulls from Paracas, Peru. Using uninformed opinions and presuppositions, some people think they're aliens. Others think they're an evolutionary branch of humans. Based on their faulty assumptions and reasoning, some extremely doubtful science (including incomplete DNA sequencing) has been performed.

We've been down this road before. Early mtDNA sequencing for Neanderthals had people believing that they were very different from modern humans. There was also the fiasco of "junk DNA". Both of those involved making claims based on assumptions and incomplete evidence. In the case of the Paracas skulls, it appears that some profiteering is afoot. It does not help matters that the scientist doing the DNA analysis is unnamed. But you can make a donation if you believe that the analysis is worthwhile.

Paracas Necropolis Culture

This story began with archaeologist Julio Tello’s 1928 discovery of 429 mummies in the subterranean necropolis at Wari Kayan on southern Peru’s Paracas Peninsula. Interred sitting in baskets, the dessicated bodies were swaddled in colorful fabrics, some richly embroidered. Pottery and textiles from the site resemble those of Peru’s Nasca people. Archaeologists think the Paracus Necropolis Culture probably dates to sometime in the first two centuries AD.

The people buried at Wari Kayan had conical, extremely elongated skulls. Their faces were normal, and the cranial deformation is typical of that produced by infant head binding, a common practice among ancient societies.

Creating a Cranial Mystery with Dubious Anatomical Claims

Tour guide Brien Foerster and David Hatcher Childress—a prolific author of self-published books about mysterious phenomena—weren’t content with the historical place of these people. They decided the skulls were so unusual they couldn’t be as human as you and I. They co-authored the book The Enigma of Cranial Deformation featuring a Paracan skull on the cover. In the book they quote 19th century doctor Johann Jakob von Tschudi who claimed the “wormian” bone found on the skulls of many South American natives was evidence they were of a primitive race. The wormian bone is an extra bony plate that forms within a cranial suture line. (Sutures are immobile joints that fuse skull bones together once a child’s head has finished growing.) Of course the wormian bone, found in a variety of disease and non-disease states, has nothing to do with being members of a primitive “race”!

Thursday, March 6, 2014

The standard evolutionary paradigm for the formation of oil, coal and so forth involves millions of years. Creationists have correctly disputed this, and it has been known for quite a while that these things can be formed in a short period of time.

Credit: Image*After

Since evolution requires belief that the earth is ancient, people interpret data through old earth spectacles. They have attempted to say that the Bible is wrong about the Genesis Flood and oil at the Tower of Babel. Part of the problem is their use of the word "pitch" in Genesis 6.14. (This is understandable to some extent, because כֹּפֶר, kopher in Hebrew, is an uncertain word and has several meanings. More consistently and accurately, it means "covering" and not "petroleum product". If the Genesis-deniers had done a bit of research, they would not be making such statements.) Instead, the rapid formation of oil supports the biblical Flood timeline and is problematic to evolutionists.

My earlier Acts & Facts article “Oil, Fracking, and a Recent Global Flood” dealt with the origin of hydrocarbons and the oil generation process. This article will examine the timing of oil and gas generation and their migration into reservoirs. Unfortunately, the scientific information communicated to the public is slanted by pro-evolutionary rhetoric. The occurrence of oil is even used as an argument against a recent global flood. Evolutionist David Montgomery insists all sedimentary rocks could not have formed during the year-long Flood, arguing that “a literal reading of the Bible requires that such rocks already existed at the time of the Flood because bitumen, the pitch or tar Noah used to caulk the ark (Genesis 6:14), comes from sedimentary rock.”

However, as Dr. Henry M. Morris III pointed out, the Hebrew word used in this verse, kopher, doesn’t literally translate as “pitch.” He stated, “The word is used 17 times in the Old Testament, and is translated ‘pitch’ only in Genesis 6:14. Most of the time, kopher is translated with some term that represents money.”3 It seems that kopher was some sort of expensive (hence the possible reference to money) sheathing or covering that was placed over the wood of the Ark. Dr. Morris added that “the kopher that sheathed or coated the Ark is not specified….The idea that kopher was liquid is merely assumed….Even if the material was a liquid coating, the development of resins or other non-petroleum coating materials has long been known to man.”

Once the floodwaters drained off the continents, deeply buried marine algal and planktonic deposits that were disseminated in the sediments (source rocks) began to heat up, reaching the geothermal gradients we observe today. How quickly did this heating occur, and how rapidly was oil generated?